Contents

General Discussion

I think we need to break the agenda off into decisional items and discussion topics. The meeting should only be needed for decisional items which require money or organizational change. Right? Seems like our meetings get longer, and we rarely make decisions unless the issue is forced. Definitely recommend discussion happen between (or just after) meetings with a decisional vote at the meeting based on the consensus of the discussion. Abyssknight 08:44, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Do-ocracied that division myself. If you don't like it, feel free to edit. Abyssknight 09:31, 8 December 2011 (CST)

abyss's comments

I will be unable to make the meeting, so I'm posting my thoughts here.

I'd like wait to see what costs would be associated with this. We're going to be up there modifying the structure regardless. Hopefully Dave Woods can come to us with costs. - Mack 10:40, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Ian's note - needs to be part of a broader "check the AC, ensure everything functions, work with Dave Woods to remedy. If we are MODDING the original system, beyond initial "make sure it works", then FamiLAB may have cost. Ian

Agreed, just needs to get done pretty soon or we will forget about it.

Expenses during the month: How will we approve, how will we reimburse, what happens if the person loses the receipt Digitalman2112 06:17, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Yes, this is critical. Also may be good to discuss funding projects with member solicited funds. Just because we don't have it in budget doesn't mean we can't do it -- it just means you have to try harder.

I see a big issue with getting agreement on spending lab funds. A way around this, as I see it, is for dues to only cover overhead (rent, power, administrative) and have people fund acquisitions seperately. However, this is inherently limiting. Mack 10:36, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Maybe do the donation model for large purchases like AlphaOneLabs does? It isn't Kickstarter, but something more for members to vote with their cash for things they want. Abyssknight 10:59, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Increase focus by moving to one microcontroller Monday per month, or leave as-is? Da3v

I had an idea to make one night a month the "classroom instruction" night and the other more of a "show and tell". Really if people are only interested in instruction one night a month would make sense. Mack

We need to ramp up classes, but I'd say reducing MicroMonday to one a month makes sense. Then we can use that day for another class.

Membership levels: Current structure defines "thinker" and "maker" levels. There has been objection to limiting access to tools. Mack

The value add really needs to be well defined, otherwise no one will pay the higher level of dues. Why would you pay extra for the same level of access? Personal storage is great, but currently not enforced as a "maker" level only thing.

Where are these objections coming from? My assumption is that most of the complaints are coming from non-members or "thinker" level members. Not trying to take a hard stance here, but it seems like people are complaining to complain again.

We can't sustain the lab at $20 a head. 20 * ~30 = 600/month which is barely our rent at the old space. If anything, we need to up the rates so we can make our utility bill.

We need a better solution to this problem. Access control didn't work at the old space, and apparently it isn't going to work here either.

Most of the issues we have tend to be with people who are not as invested in the space, be it time or money. As seen with the fire extinguisher, laser, and other recent issues.

Actually it's Dan. He doesn't see it as fair. To be honest, I see where he's coming from, and I somewhat agree, but don't know how to get around the fact that tools are pricy both to purchase and run. Mack

I get it too, we need to approach it another way I think. We can't control access, and we can't really control storage either. How can we differentiate the value propositions in another way? Good point of discussion for the meeting. Abyssknight 10:39, 8 December 2011 (CST)

Also, I see a correlation between cost of access and perception of value, which encourages people to respect lab property. I think back to how my attitude towards tools have changed since I was a kid and now. Mack

Also also, we have members (and potential members) who have joined (or are looking to join) a Tech Shop kind of place. I don't want to discourage investment from these kinds of people. That could be because that's the kind of organization I wanted to create, too. Mack